Case Of Appellant: 42 USC: 1983 Application To Employment Dismissal

Re: Brief of Appellant: 42 USC § 1983 Application to Employment Dismissal Case

II. The District Court erred in disregarding Mason County District Attorney’s Office involvement with respect to the firing of Mr. Brady, an independent contractor, who was fired in retaliation to his comments criticizing the Mason County District Attorney’s Immigration policy, and in concluding that the Pickering test only protects full-time government employees.

The District Court incorrectly held that the Pickering protections are only meant to protect full-time governmental employees, and not employees of private agencies who may be acting as independent contractors for the government. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established that
The court emphasized that allowing the constitutional claim to turn on a distinction between employees and independent contractors would invite manipulation by government, which would avoid constitutional liability simply by attaching different labels to particular jobs. Bd. Of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. at
Public employees have a First Amendment right to speak freely on matters of public concern. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). Brady's conduct in speaking out against Mason County’s illegal immigration policies and the potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of government officials is of obvious public concern given that the initiative is supported by taxpayer dollars, which citizens ordinarily have the right to comment freely. Thus, the court erred in its conclusion. Here, Mr. Brady spoke as a citizen regarding a matter of public concern, and the lower court’s finding should be reversed here on